DATE OF FILING: 27.08.2019
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 08.05.2023
Sri Satish Kumar Panigrahi, President:
The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties (in short O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.
2. The complainant sent Rs.1000/- by M.O. on 30.07.2018 to his son-in-law namely Sibasish Mishra, Room No 203, Premlata Enclave, Star City, Pattia, near RTO, II, Bhubaneswar, Mobile No.9437915515 vide receipt No. EMO PNR NO: 087102329313342030. But the same has not been reached to his son-in-law Mr. Sibasish from the postal department. Then the complainant gave written letters to O.Ps regarding non-payment of the eMO to the payee on different dates i.e., on 6.08.2018, on 24.08.2018, on 12.09.2018 and 27.09.2018 but nobody had given heed to it. However the complainant made enquiry through the web site postal track consignment regarding the status of the eMO on 20.09.2018 found that item redirected on 06.08.2018. After many communication made by the complainant, the office of Chief Post Master General, Odisha circle issued a letter to the complainant vide letter No. PG-26-172/2018 dated 27.09.2018 and to the Sr. Supdt. of Post office, Bhubaneswar Division, Bhubaneswar vide letter No. PG-26-172/2018 dated 05.11.2018 wherein it was directed to enquiry into the matter. But no one obeyed the directions of the Chief Post Master General of Odisha which caused the complainant severe mental agony in his old age time. Due to the negligence services of the Ops, the complainant has suffered loss and injury and the Ops infringe the fundamental rights. The complainant deprived from the actual services, faced harassment, mental agonies and loss of visit, for which he is entitled for compensation. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to refund the eMO amounting of Rs.1000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs in the best interests of justice.
3. Admitting the Consumer Complaint this Commission has issued notice to the Opposite Parties.
4. Duly acknowledging the notice, the O.Ps filed version through the advocate. The Ops admitted the fact of remittance of Rs.1000/- to Sri Sibasish Mishra vide eMO No. 087102329313342030 booked at Head Post office, Berhampur on 30.07.2018. The Head Post office sent the same for onward transmission on the same day for payment to the payee. Due to technical problem, the amount could not be paid to the payee. As such one online complaint was filed by the complainant vide No.760000-06318 on 08.08.2018. Due to some technical issues, the eMO could not be paid to the payee and the complainant was transferred to Berhampur on 19.11.2018. The eMO was not received at Berhampur Head Post office due to technical issue and the matter was taken up with TCS help desk to resolve the issue. When the issue could not be resolved after a long time, finally sanction order was issued for issue of duplicate money order to effect payment to the payee. As the duplicate eMO could not be paid again on 18.11.2019, the Senior Post Master Berhampur Head Post Office again prepared a duplicate money order and sent it to the payment office for effecting payment to the payee. But the eMO was returned back on 04.12.2019 with remark that “Payee always absent”. Thereafter the duplicate money order was issued to the postman of Berhampur Head Post Office on 11.12.2019 for effecting payment to the remitter Sri Sashibhusan Mishra. The remitter-complainant refused to receive the amount for the best reasons known to the complainant. The Opposite Parties are ready to make payment of the money order amount to the complainant. There is no willful neglect by the O.Ps that there is no deficiency of service by the O.Ps at all at any point of time. As per section-6 of Indian Post Office Act, the Government shall not incur any liability by reason of loss, misdelivery or delay or damage to any postal articles in course of transmission by Post and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act of default. That no contract was entered into between the sender and the posts office while booking the money order. The postal authorities had no malafide intention at all as service to people is their moral right. The averments made in para-6 and 7 are not true and correct. The complainant is not entitled for any compensation as claimed in the complaint petition. Hence the O.Ps prayed that the Forum be pleased to dismiss the complaint petition in the interest of justice.
5. Heard to the Ld. Counsels of the Complainant and Opposite parties as well. Perused and verified the documents, complaint etc. available in the case record. The complainant has filed his affidavit for chief and the written argument. Simultaneously the Ops have filed their evidence on affidavit along with certain reliable documents and written arguments.
6. On perusal of the complaint, evidence on affidavit and written argument along with documents and citation filed by the complainant is related to deficiency in services of the Ops. The complainant has contended that an amount of Rs.1000/- has been sent to his Son-in-Law Sri Sibasish Mishra vide eMo P.N.R. No.: 087102329313342030 on 30.07.2018 but said amount has not been paid to the payee till date by the opposite parties. The complainant further submitted that in the result the purpose for which said eMO has sent did not serve the purpose. While matter stood thus, the complainant being disciplined and respectable person having dignity, integrity and potency in the society, approached the O.Ps regarding non-payment of the money to his son-in-law and also requested to refund the amount but nobody pay heed to it. Even the opposite party no.2 has also not discharged the duty on the instruction of the CPMG, Odisha. Hence the Complainant sustained injuries mentally and faced deficient in services due to dereliction of duty and callousness of the OPs. The O.Ps objecting the complaint submitted in shape of affidavit that due to technical problems the amount could not be paid to the payee. Further, the Ops have submitted that for the said technical issues the eMO was not received at Berhampur Head Post Office also. To resolve the issue, the Ops was taken up the help of the TCS help desk. Again the Ops submitted that, they have issued sanction order for issuance of duplicate money order to effect payment to the payee when the issue could not resolve after a long time. And when the said purpose did not serve, again the OP no.3 sent another money order on 18.11.2019 to the payment office to pay the payee. At last the said eMO returned back on 04.12.2019 with remark that, “Payee always absent”. Thereafter, the Ops issued another duplicate money order which was issued to the Postman of Berhampur Head Post Office on 11.12.2019 for effecting payment to the remitter Shri Sashibhusan Mishra but the same was returned due to remitter-complainant refused to receive the amount. Further the Ops are having willingness to make payment of the money order amount to the complainant.” However, the Ops intention of submit the version in the instant case is that, they have tried sincerely to make payment to the payee or refund to the remitter. In view of the above submission in sole testimony, the Ops have neither filed any corroborative documents to that effect nor elaborated the purported "technical problem" has been made by the Ops mentioned in their version-cum-evidence on affidavit. There is no mention of any disciplinary or departmental action being taken on the errant officials or of any managerial steps for systemic improvements for future. The O.Ps further stated that they are not responsible for any reason for non-payment of the money order. The Ops submitted in the written argument that, in accordance to Section 6 and 48 of the Indian Post Office Act, ‘the Government shall not incur any liability by reason of loss, misdelivery on delay or damage to any postal articles in course of transmission by Post and no office of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.’ Moreover, there is no allegation of any fraud or willful neglect of act on part of employee of the postal department. And there was no contract was entered into between the sender and the post office while booking the money order. Hence the Ops relied upon the authority of State CDR Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in Sub-Post Master & Anr. vs. Anik Lal reported in 2002 91) CPR 248 that, “For delay in payment of money order in absence of allegation of any fraud or willful act on part of employee of postal department cannot be held liable for deficiency in service in view of Sec.48 of Indian Post Office Act’ and accordingly the Ld. Counsel for Ops submitted that the postal department could not be made liable for any compensation in the present case.
9. To discredit the contention of the OPs, the Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that, even after sending repeated letters and contacted the booking post office in the old age, no tangible steps has been taken so far which points to fact that, the eMO amount has not been paid to the payee or to the remitter till date due to willful act on part of employee of the Postal Department – Ops. And for such negligence in duty by the Ops, the complainant himself was forced to file a complaint with the consumer commission either his son-in-law get the money or he himself will get it back. Instead, the Ops are continuing to violate their own laws. The statute is very clear in India Post Office Rules, 1933 that, the post office shall deliver the money order either to the payee or his authorized agent. But in the instant case, the payment post office has not taken any steps to pay the money to the agent of the payee in the event of absence of the payee but the Ops have stated in their evidence that, “But the eMO was returned back on 04.12.2019 with remark that ‘Payee always absent’.” Further the complainant also highlighted that, no contract is required to book a money order as claimed by the OPs. The basic guideline laid down by the India Post, Govt. of India that, ‘A money order is an order issued by the Post Office for the payment of a sum of money to the person whose name the money order is sent through the agency of the Post Office. A ‘Payee’ is the person named in money order as the person to whom the money is to be paid. The advantage of sending money to someone through money order is that the money is delivered at the house or his place of stay.’
10. Now the question is whether the opposite parties absolves themselves from their liability by taking shelter of and mechanically applying the protection of section 6 and section 48 of the India Post Office Act 1898? In this context, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission reported as Superintendent of Post Office vs. Dr. Sasadhar Panda in Indian Kanoon – “16. Section 6 and section 48(c) of the Act 1898 do not provide a blanket immunity. The onus to establish that the protection of section 6 and section 48(c) can be sought in the given facts and circumstances of a particular case is on the Post Office, which onus it has not discharged in this case. And this has to be seen in conjunction with deficiency in service under the Act 1986 that is writ large in the facts and circumstances of this case. XXX … XXX … In the given facts, condoning such attitude, and mechanically applying the protection of section 6 and section 48(c) of the Act 1898, and out rightly overlooking the deficiency in service under the Act 1986, will defeat the purpose of both, the relevant provisions of the Act 1898 and the relevant provisions of the Act 1986, and also tantamount to this Commission granting a blanket license for inefficiency and deficiency without responsibility or accountability, which situation would be absurd, to say the least.
17. The dispute relates to 2015, we are in 2019. It is quite evident that the Post Office, after its deficiency in service, agitated, unsuccessfully, in one, two, and now three, consumer fora, needlessly wasting public time and monies. Even an opportunity to a senior officer to give a reasoned defense and inculcate responsibility and accountability was summarily disposed of with a bland report on affidavit. The arguments of learned counsel for the Post Office on 25.04.2019 centered only and only on the protection of section 6 and section 48(c) of the Act 1898 and on the ground that if this Commission does not apply the protection sought under section 6 and section 48(c) it would give rise to a "large number" of claims. We have already critiqued that in the given and admitted facts of this case, to apply the protection provided under section 6 and section 48(c) would be absurd. In respect of "large number" of claims being made, the correct approach would be for the Post Office to inculcate systemic improvements and imbibe responsibility and accountability.
18. In the light of the discussion above, this is a fit case to impose reasonable and just cost.”
11. On foregoing discussion and in view of the clear position of law and the documentary evidences in details available in the record and the ratio of the present case can be equated with the Post Office (Supra). Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties and the Ops are jointly and severally liable to pay the cost.
12. In the present case, a legal injury is caused to the complainant due to negligence on part of Ops and therefore, in order to recognize the legally protected rights of the Complainant, he needs to be compensated. In this connection, we would like to cite the authority of Lordship of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Consumer Unity and Trust Society, Jaipur vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, Bank of Baroda, Calcutta & Anr. reported in 1986-99, Consumer 1456 (NS) where it was observed as follows:
“Negligence is absence of reasonable or prudent care which a reasonable person is expected to observe in a given set of circumstance. But the negligence for which a consumer can claim to be compensated under this sub-section must cause some loss or injury to him. Loss is a generic term; it signifies some detriment, deprivation or damage. Injury too means any damage or wrong. It means invasion of any legally protected interest of another. Thus the provision of section 14(1)(d) are attracted if the person form who damages are claimed is found to have acted negligently and such negligence must result in some loss to the person claiming damages, injury, if any, must flow from negligence.”
14. So, in the instant case the Ops negligently acted and caused a legal injury to the complainant so he needs to compensate. As far as compensation is concerned in this case, the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost. However, he has not corroborated his claim by filling any cogent documentary evidence that his actual loss was Rs.1,00,000/-. Thus it appears to be hypothetical claim towards compensation. In this case, the complainant neither get back the eMO amount of Rs.1000/- nor delivered to the payee. The purpose of transferring of the amount through eMO was defeated in the instant case. Hence, all the Ops are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation for its arbitrary and illegal actions and negligence caused to the complainant.
15. In the light of the above discussion, we allow the case of the complainant against all the opposite parties on contest.
In the result, considering the present fact and circumstances of the case, it is directed to Opposite Party No.1 to remove the deficient in services like not disbursement of eMO within 24 hours. It is directed to the opposite party No.3 to refund the eMO amount of Rs.1000/- to the Complainant. We feel that Rs.25000/- would be just and proper towards compensation as the complainant was harassed by all the Opposite Parties as well as suffered from mental agony and sustained injuries in the old age. With regard to the cost of litigation, we allow a moderate amount of Rs.5,000/- to meet his legal expenses, since he was forced to knock the door of the Consumer Commission. Hence the opposite parties are directed to refund the eMO amount, compensation and cost to the complainant as mentioned supra within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order. In the event of non-compliance of the order, the Complainant is at liberty to recover the entire amount from the Opposite Parties with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filling of the case i.e., 27.08.2019 till actual realization of the same is made under the Consumer Protection Act.
This case is disposed of accordingly.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
PRONOUNCED ON: 08.05.2023.
